Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com> writes: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote: >> You should be running your tools against the staging tree automatically, >> that way you catch it before it hits the mainline tree. >> >> Just flooding mailing lists for the sake of flooding them doesn't add >> any value either. > > We are used to handling the traffic. Heh. Don't worry about us. ;)
I know how the traffic works, and I know I don't particularly like flooding that I don't need to receive. I'll add de...@driverdev.osuosl.org to the CC list next time. > I don't actually run static analysis on staging patches until they hit > linux-next, I only review the mailing list patches manually. My review > process is built around mailing lists so creating a special process for > rtl8723au makes my life harder instead of easier. Every subsystem has a > review process, it's not that we are treating you unfairly by asking you > to send your patches for review. I am not suggesting you do it for the rtl8723au driver, I suggest you do it as a general thing. I don't read de...@driverdev.osuosl.org either, and like many other developers, I mostly gave up on lkml as well. > Btw, Greg doesn't rebase the staging tree so, once a patch is merged, > then it means it will hit mainline. At that point, it is too late to > send a second version of the patch. I know, but I also know that I am not going to rebase my tree and resubmit the full set, unless there is a strong reason for doing so. As long as something sits in staging it's not really a showstopper if a minor issue slips past and gets fixed up in a follow-on commit. Jes _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
